Attitudes and Perceptions of Community Councils on The

Home , Big Sky High School

Attitudes and perceptions of Community Councils on the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Southwestern Crown Collaborative forest restoration projects.

Jimmie McKay, Graduate Student Professional Paper Submitted for partial fulfillment of the requirements of a Masters in Science (MS) The University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation December 24, 2012

Table of Contents

Cover Pg. 1

Table of contents Pg. 2

Summary & Recommendations Pg. 3-5

Introduction Pg. 5-7

Background Pg. 7-13

Methods Pg. 13-14

Findings Pg. 15-24

Discussion Pg. 24-28

Conclusion Pg. 28-35

Appendix I Description of the SWCC and Map of the Crown of the Continent Pg. 36

Appendix II Timeline Pg. 37

Appendix III About myself and how I relate to the SWCC Pg. 39-40

Appendix IV Population Maps Pg. 41

Appendix V Questionnaire Introduction and Questionnaire Pg. 42-45

Appendix VI Local Area News Paper Articles and Published Opinions Pg. 46-51

Literature Citations Pg. 51-54

Acknowledgements Pg. 54

Summary & Recommendations

The forest industry in western Montana has undergone tremendous changes since the 1970’s. Many residents and local communities have undergone difficult economic times with the decline of the forest industry. In response, starting in the 1970’s collaborative forest landscape type management began to take place on private lands led by groups like the Blackfoot Challenge in the early 1970’s. Due to these kinds of efforts, the stages of forest restoration and conservation were beginning to take hold. However, the passage of the Forest Landscape Restoration Act (FLRA) in 2009 has given an economic boost to forest restoration and brought it into the national spotlight. The FLRA set forth a collaborative management progression of forest landscape planning and restorations beginning with the development of a Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) and ending with the Southwestern Crown Collaborative (SWCC) forest landscape restoration projects on Forest Service lands. The SWCC engages local stakeholders in decision-making roles with Forest Service oversight.

The SWCC has the potential to greatly impact the region. Given the key role local stakeholders will play in the SWCC; it is important to understand the various perceptions and attitudes the public have about the CFLRP and SWCC. The purpose of this study is to help gain insight into local perceptions and attitudes on the CFLRP and SWCC. Twenty three participants in the area’s community councils were given a questionnaire with the objective to explore perceptions in the ability of the SWCC to accomplish its mission, benefit local economies, provide training opportunities, and create present and long term employment in the area.

The key findings that came out in the comments and answers to the questionnaire were (1) an over whelming lack of awareness and knowledge of the CFLRP and SWCC, and (2) a general skepticism the long-term goals of the program could be achieved. While this study was taken in the early stages of the program; it does provide important insights that should be of interest to all those involved in the project.

In order to address the lack of awareness and understand of the SWCC and general skepticism about this government program, the USFS will need to increase their efforts on keeping the public fully informed. Due to the size and scope of this program the USFS and SWCC will have to go above and beyond normal communication and information sharing process in as many ways as deemed necessary. In order to assure trust in the program and restoration projects; the public will need these extra ordinary measures based on complete openness and compassion when addressing area and individual needs. The following recommendations were developed in the process of conducting this study. To address the lack of knowledge of and skepticism

about the CFLRP and SWCC; the following recommendations were developed from this case study for consideration:

1. The USWFS or the SWCC should produce and publish a poster showing and explaining the purpose if the CFLRP. The poster should show how it was formed, the relationship and differences between the forest service participation and oversight function and the functions of the SWCC in the planning, decision-making and monitoring of the forest landscape restoration projects.

2. There should be greater emphasis on the promotion of the proximity preferences in the letting of contracts to contractors by the USFS

3. There should be active involvement with Community Councils throughout the area should be increased by correspondences, letters, emails, etc. (possibly an email list set up for all those that want the most recent updated material)

4. The USFS and SWCC needs to provide liaison officers or appoint a SWCC information representative to update community councils or other community gatherings about the SWCC plans and accomplishments on a regular basis, which would be more proactive than reactive

5. There should be complete openness in the contracts being let, including their cost and purpose, types of contracts, contractors hired and reasons or justifications for their hiring along with publicizing number of jobs both permanent and part-time created

6. The USFS should publish location of contractor’s home bases and number of extra employees needed to accomplish the SWCC contracts.

7. Continue annual or bi-annual contractor workshops and set up contractor help stations, or appoint personal to help those that request it, at all district ranger stations, or places such as the University of Montana Lubrecht’s Experimental Forest Conference Center

8. Promote continuing relationships and make available information on present and upcoming restoration project, to area news media.

9. Set up SWCC information bulletin boards at local gathering places like Post Offices, Community Halls, and fire stations.

10. Hold SWCC stakeholder and monitoring committee meeting at different public locations and times throughout the area. 4

11. The USFS and the SWCC should actively promote the hiring and training of area residents hired by a contractors and research groups that receive contracts funded by CFLRP, for the work in their contracts that do not require a higher level of education other than a high school diploma.

I realize that some of these recommendations may already be in progress or that some of them may-be too costly. The fact that the USFS and SWCC can and does acknowledge the need for better communication to local communities and those extra efforts can only benefit is progress in itself.

Introduction

The western parts of Montana in the past decade has been slowly shifting away from traditional, extraction-based manufacturing jobs, which include logging and timber processing, toward more service oriented jobs, which include public service, education and health care (Montana REAP 2001-2011) Shift-Share Analysis Results. As a result many areas in western Montana have seen dramatic declines in good paying jobs associated with logging and timber processing (Morgan, 2011). Many residents have deep historical, cultural, and family ties to the area. Having to break those ties, along with the realization of loss in future ties to the area for the next generation, puts them, their families, and their communities under a lot of stress. This change in livelihood opportunities can cause resentment and a desire to blame others for the changes that may have caused their unwanted circumstances. To make matters worse federal and state governments are increasingly being forced into belt tightening reducing public sector income opportunity. In Western Montana many communities are facing economic hardships based on these cut backs and the change in shape of the Montana economy.

This exploratory case study intends to provide insight of the residents’ perceptions and attitudes regarding one innovative solution being implemented in their area, a special federally sponsored forest restoration program, the SW Crown of the Continent (SWCC LRS 2010) Forest Landscape Restoration Program. The U.S. Congress in 2009 passed the Forest Landscape Restoration Act (FLMA 2009) allowing the development of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). This act allows for experimental, collaborative management

programs like the SWCC to utilize federal funds for federal forest landscape restoration projects with the local citizens and organizations as collaborative partners with U.S. Forest Service (USFS) oversight on final decisions. This CFLRP allows forest landscape restoration projects within these large landscapes, but with area specific, site appropriate, and multi-purpose based approaches, which includes comprehensive monitoring and periodic assessments of the entire process. This act allows monitoring of those collaborative efforts to see if they will work and be accepted by the local residents affected by the results of the act as well as the majority of the nation. This is similar to the policy experimentation alternative (Nie 2008 pg.236).

The study that I have initiated, therefore, has the following objective: Identify resident perceptions, attitudes and beliefs in the ability of the SWCC to accomplish its mission to benefit local economies, provide training opportunities, and create present and long term employment in the area. It utilizes a case study approach to gain insight on local residents’ understanding of forest restoration, stewardship projects and the potential for this new type of forest management to offer anticipated benefits to the area’s communities. Examples of projects that could hire locals contractors are forest fuels reduction, aquatics study and restoration, soil erosion, weed treatments, bio-fuels gathering, road work, road decommissioning, trail work and sustainable timber harvesting. A case study is a common technique to gather preliminary insight into a complex, developing occurrence where several social pressures and unpredictable potential outcomes are present (Yin 1984).

To explore perceptions of residents this research will use the South Western Crown’s local and surrounding Community Councils (CCs) with their publically elected officials, and involved local citizens, (meeting attendees). Community Councils were formed to communicate the needs, and concerns of their respective communities to the county government through the Missoula County Rural Initiatives Department. These CC members are elected to reflect the community’s thoughts and ideas which could provide insight on the communities concerns and attitudes. The SWCC- CFLRP forest landscape restoration project offers a useful vehicle to examine resident perceptions, since the intent of the legislation was to apply a collaborative approach to project design and implementation. During the past three years the USFS and SWCC have tried to include the area’s community members into their planning and project monitoring processes. The SWCC proposal allows some of the CFLRP funding for gathering and embracing in a collaborative way the interests of the local and surrounding communities as they progress through their forest landscape restoration project efforts.

Because of time and practical considerations, a representative survey of residents in the SW Crown area was not conducted, but instead, a more qualitative approach was applied to offer 6

initial information on residents’ perceptions. The Communities Councils and their members were readily available respondents to inform an exploratory look at resident points-of-view, and were selected based on their self-identified interest in participating in the study. Members of Community Councils in the SW Crown area were asked to voluntarily fill out a brief, written questionnaire, and a small, but not inconsequential proportion of Community Council participants respondents (37% - 23 of 62 participants ) agreed to do so. Their responses form the core of the data used in the study. However, the findings from these respondents do not necessarily reflect the interest or values of the communities at large, but only serve as one group of informants to help understand community-level perceptions.

All the volunteers who filled out the questionnaire were living with-in the CFLRP funded landscape or in areas surrounding the landscape. Questionnaires were completed in October 2011 through March of 2012. All the members that volunteered were living within the CFLRP funded landscape or in areas surrounding the restoration area during the fall and spring of 2011 and 2012. Their responses provide a basis, or lack thereof, for the locally observed consequences of actions, changes, and results that have occurred since the SWCC projects have started and if these changes influenced the attitudes and beliefs of the local and surrounding area residents. In other words, the answers and comments are based on what they and their fellow citizens have experienced, heard, seen, read, or just believe about the CFLRP and SWCC project, and how that relates to their perceptions of area job creation, training, and business opportunities.

Background

The Southwestern Crown of the Continent forms the southern and western boundary of the wild Bob Marshall- Scape Goat Wilderness Complex and consists of the lower elevation forests and communities of the Blackfoot, Clearwater, and Swan River valleys. Throughout its 1.5 million acres are an array of working ranches, private timberlands, craggy mountain peaks, abundant wildlife, and pristine lakes and streams. Although the collaborative restoration projects are limited to the National Forest lands within that area, the program will help facilitate or complement the management of other non-profit, private, and state lands management decisions within and surrounding this area. The following maps identify the location of the SW Crown project area:

SWCC Boundary Shaded is interior protected lands benefiting from restoration or conservation. Map Courtesy of Patty Guide, Sonoran Institute

Counties within or boarding the SWCC Boundaries

Map courtesy of Cory Davis (UM SWCC liaison)

Background continued Due to the passage of the FLRA in 2009, this case as with the 9 other selected CFLR projects, the USFS has been tasked to restore and manage our national forest landscapes according to restoration and natural resource sustainability guidelines. The FLRA identifies responsibilities toward communities in a specific section of the legislation:

PL 111-11 “Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009”

(7) Benefit local economies by providing local employment or training opportunities through contracts, grants, or agreements for restoration planning, design, implementation, or monitoring with--

(A) Local private, nonprofit, or cooperative entities;

(B) Youth Conservation Corps crews or related partnerships, with State, local, and non-profit youth groups;

(D) Other entities that will hire or train local people to complete such contracts, grants, or agreements;

In order to achieve the restored forest landscape vision, the SWCC has developed a landscape strategy to guide restoration actions over the next ten years. “The strategy is built on a long, successful history of collaborative conservation across the landscape and informed by the best available ecological science. Some of the community groups participating in this collaborative have been working with numerous public and private partners over the last 20 years to improve habitats, restore streams, improve fisheries, restore and manage wildlife, mitigate weeds, and keep large landscapes intact.”i

The SWCC vision statement reads “The backbone of our work is our commitment to the vision of a sustainable Southwestern Crown landscape that provides for the full array of ecosystem services and economic and social benefits.” According to the SWCC proposal submitted to the CFLRP; this program is designed to utilize the taxpayer’s money responsibly and provide needed federal forested landscape restorations in designated areas while adding local jobs, training and economic opportunities to the areas in and around the restorations. The results and costs of managing a selected portion of our national forests, using the CFLRP’s design for long term forest landscape restoration, can be a measuring tool for other federal natural resource management agencies in their efforts to gauge the cost and benefits to see whether 10

collaborative groups like this can benefit other federal forested landscape areas and their local communities as well as the nation as a whole.

The Community Council’s members and involved participants were chosen for the exploratory study because they have a relationship to the SWCC and the effects of its CFLRP funded forest Landscape restoration projects on USFS land in the designated area. All the CCs are within the area or represent communities that are adjacent to the SWCC, each with ties to the area socially, historically, governmentally and economically.

Community Councils (CCs) are an elected group of citizens representing those particular areas that can provide focus, leadership, and continuity to that area (CC Handbook 2012). More specifically, their establishment was created for the following purpose: “A Community Council differs from other community-based organizations because it establishes an official communication link between an area and a Board of County Commissioners. Councils are part of County government and they may recommend to the Commissioners the creation of additional governance tools in a particular area such as business or special improvement district and multi-jurisdictional districts. They can also partner with County agencies to apply for grants and loans for new local initiatives. Community Councils are encouraged to undertake such projects to address issues of local concern that are not necessarily initiated by the Commissioners; however, Community Councils are not a separate legal entity and, as such, cannot enter into contracts or agreements”( Missoula County CC Handbook 2012).

In practical terms a major function of CC’s is to foster communication between different government agencies and private organizations / groups, to their communities that are outside the larger urban centers. These Councils can do this by distributing information to citizens and providing a forum for the discussion of local issues such as economic development, housing, land use planning and zoning infrastructure needs, or parks and recreation. CCs can provide a way for local citizens to become more involved and connected with local government by acting as a pathway to provide input and recommendations to the county level, which in turn can contact groups such as the SWCC and Forest Service to address citizen’s concerns.

Community Councils can communicate regularly with the citizens of the community by any and all means deemed necessary and desirable in order to obtain comments and suggestions regarding issues of concern to the community. They provide a transparent and open public forum for citizens that provide a forum for discussion of all sides of community issues. Community Councils may also facilitate communication with other local, county, state, federal and tribal government agencies; and with other organizations or individuals regarding matters

of concern. To comment on projects or other issues of concern for upper levels of government (state and federal agencies and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes), Councils submit requests to the Commissioners in order to make a formal recommendation of behalf of the Council. Community Councils are intended to advance and promote the interests and welfare of the citizens and landowners of the Council area.

Although the SWCC does not intended to establish a community forestry program which has goals and practices in which forests are claimed, valued, used and managed by particular communities, it does intend to engage in a meaningful way local residents in decision-making and project review. By working with Community Councils the USFS could find a useful partner to implement forest landscape restorations. Community Councils can help build community and find way for citizens to come together around exciting projects as well as work through difficult issues. These CCs have the ability to embark on and work through community discussions that sometimes take a significant amount of time and are hard to resolve.

The relationship between public land management and local populations has a rich history of academic study. Groups like the Science and Policy Working Group explaining how natural capital and ecological restoration will help solve the economic corrosion in areas where job are being lost due to the preservation of our natural resources. “Natural capital economics differs from neoclassical economic theory in that it recognizes the contribution of nature to economy, and not only the products of human enterprise. We must restore impaired ecosystems if we are ever to regain the natural capital necessary to prevent continued economic and social decay and to approach economic and ecological health and sustainability.” (SER 2004 and Lowe 2009)

Community based natural resource management (CBNRM) in North America has often taken the form of community forestry programs and projects. These programs have spread quickly throughout the United States over the past two decades, and can be recognized as part of the global dissemination of community forestry as an alternative to fortress conservation and centralized federal control over natural resources in an effort to better benefit communities in close relationship to the landscapes (Dressler 2010). Obviously this is having a direct impact on the residents and communities within or near theses landscapes. In the western United States many of these community-based forestry projects are currently based around efforts to reduce forest fuel and mitigate the impacts of wildfires. Hjerpe and Yeon-Su identify in their study, “Economic Impacts of Southwestern National Forest Fuels Reductions” how fuels reduction programs aimed at reducing wildfire risk can provide economic benefits to regional economies, businesses, and individuals. In this particular case fuels reduction programs for these five southwestern National Forests accounted for over $40 million of output and helped generate some 500 jobs, providing an economic stimulus to rural communities. (Hjerpe 2004) 12

Although the economic impact from fuels treatments in Montana might not be the same as in the southwest (they might be larger or might be smaller), the very process of engaging citizens in resource management can lead to other, sometimes more intangible benefits. The insight from collaborative decisions could be extremely important for resource management decisions to be effective. For example McKinney (2008) describes how using opportunities to integrate collaborative methods into a land use decision-making process benefit the whole management process. Tailoring these processes to local realities can also lead to better management: “Public preferences for forest ecosystem management may vary by demographic characteristics or by the level and type of interaction with the resource” (Racevskis 2006).

The SWCC Collaborative is a unique group of stakeholders committed to ethical and sustainable stewardship management in their effort to restore this model landscape. This collaborative is trying to expand on the sense of community and place to gather support throughout the U.S. for place based management. This is important because present or future ventures will need to discover how the general public thinks about the best practices for their area. “The ability to learn as you implement policies for place based collaborative management approaches of our natural resources allows us to treat our interventions as learning processes that can contribute to continuous improvement. This will help expand our understanding of interactions between people and their environment.” (Keen 2006)

Methods

Data collection for the study focused on soliciting socially active resident volunteers involved with the Community Councils (CC) living with in or near the area of the SWCC. This case study will be taking more of a qualitative approach with the data rather than a quantitative approach as the data will only be used to help gather insight to better understand perceptions and attitudes of the area’s residents pertaining to the CFLRP, and SWCC.

A questionnaire was used to gather the data from residents, (CC participants). The questionnaire consisted of 7 basic questions dealing with their knowledge of and perceptions on the CFLRP and SWCC (Questionnaire in Appendix III). All respondents live within or near the designated area of the SWCC restoration proposal boundaries. The study utilized a grounded theory approach where insights are drawn from the data instead of testing predetermined hypotheses (Strauss and Corbin 1990, Charmez 2004). As increasingly more information from those familiar with the occurrence come out, groups of significance and patterns of social representation become clearer. This self-motivated process of data collection and analysis

strives to ensure that the perceptions of what people see, hear or feel is happening, and is rooted in the actual experiences of the affected population (Charmez 2004).

The CC participants were comprised of local business owners, government officials and workers (federal, state, county, city), land owners and local involved citizens. All were given the opportunity to volunteer for the questionnaire at the meetings, along with others that wanted to be contacted and given a chance to participate, but were unable to attend the meetings. For the sake of confidentiality to the respondents, details about the occupations or positions in the relatively small areas within and surrounding the SWCC projects area have been withheld.

The exploratory questionnaire was first made available to the participants of the West Valley Community Council monthly meeting October 13 2011 and all Community Council Meeting October 27 2011. An ACC is a bi-yearly gathering ,of all the CC members from their respective communities, to communicate, discuss and exchange ideas on dealing with the concerns and needs of their individual communities that have be set on the agenda. For those that didn’t attend the ACC; I then attended The Condon Community Council meeting on January 16, 2012 and Seeley Lake Community Council Meeting February 6, 2012. Those that volunteered were informed that it was not part of the agenda at the All Community Council (ACC) meetings. At the ACC, and CC meetings I explained the survey and addressed any questions or concerns in regards to understanding the overall purpose along with understanding the individual questions.

The participants were encouraged, if they volunteered, to take the questionnaire home. I requested the participants to answer and make comments based on their experiences, observations, and beliefs along with what their communities perceptions were as a whole. I supplied a self-addressed stamped envelope to mail back the questionnaires, and supplied my email and phone number in case they wanted to email the questionnaire, or if they had additional questions, or needed more clarification on the questionnaire.

The request for volunteers for this case study was at no time affiliated with, or part of the ACC or the individual Community Councils agenda and was not sanctioned by the Community Councils. I was allowed to introduce myself, explain my case study and leave questionnaires for the CC participants to voluntarily pick up after the meetings. The people that picked up the questionnaire were the elected council members, business owners, land owners and different government agency personal that were giving presentations as they were the only ones present at those meetings. These people all tended to be very involved and cared very deeply about the direction and future of their respected communities.

Findings

Seeley Lake Jan. 2012

An examination of the questionnaire data identifies that participants in this research have embraced a multi-dimensional view of forest values and the adaptive abilities required to live in and around the changing forest landscape environments. Comments from the respondents are a written portrait of their perceptions on the ability for these CFLRP/SWCC projects to be implemented and completed successfully along with providing economic opportunities in the area. The information retrieved from these comments also fits in with many of the other relevant issues such as natural processes, privileges of property ownership, environmental pressures. Getting a gauge of area resident’s belief in the capacity for the SWCC to oversee and implement an innovative program like this under federal oversight. Their perceptions and associated comments can play influential roles for interpreting what types of responses might come from the general areas citizens that are not directly associated with the CFLRP or SWCC, in the form of support or opposition.

To represent these findings effectively; this approach respects the manner in which the beneficial data was received, in the form of written comments, which were included with each answer to the 7 basic questions in the questionnaire. The content in those comments revealed a highly sophisticated set of personal images on the struggles to advance multiple interests in a diverse, dynamic landscape and its association with complex populations of neighbors, businesses, interest groups, and government agencies.

This exploratory study, at times, became an avenue for people to vent their feeling, but this kind of expression will help managers be aware of the different factors affecting the resident’s lives. This case’s data could go a long way in bringing a better understanding, and towards a mutual development of the SWCC’s collaborators and area resident’s perspectives and attitudes for finding firmer common ground.

From the questionnaire’s written comments five categories of concerns emerged. The categories have been developed in such a way as to recognize the differences in perspectives on each theme. They are offered below in an order that does not necessarily identify their relative worth across the selected sample of respondents. They are organized more for logic to a reader; understanding how tensions and attitudes can build amongst the residents, individually and as whole communities. Individual, community, and SWCC priorities can and will cause different incentives and constraints that could affect the overall results of the restoration projects. These categories of concern will be the basis for this papers insight to help people to understand what the residents perceptions are of the CFLRP and SWCC.

Category A: Frustration with the Forest Service’s ability to deliver

There is a deep skepticism among many of the survey respondents to the Forest Service’s capacity to complete tasks and fulfill their promises. After years of observing well-intentioned initiatives fall short, people wonder if the Forest Service can deliver at all. One common issue is the specter of litigation that stops proposed projects, as evidenced by these comments:

“There is huge potential for economic benefits. Litigation with Forest Service is hindering much of the process at this time. Hopefully projects will receive enough support to move forward.” 15-8

“Lawsuits filed stop “local” work in spite of the ‘collaborative’ efforts” 11-4

A separate concern about Forest Service capacity and its ability to accomplish work related to the suffocating bureaucracy. Several respondents said that it’s very difficult to wade through standard procedures to make something happen, especially as it relates to developing contracts that could help local businesses and timber operators:

“There was great interest & enthusiasm for the project. After a couple of meetings it became apparent that the thought process for actually building and awarding contract was messed up. USFS contracts are lengthy and cumbersome and really discourage small contractors from bidding. A lot more work could be done locally & efficiently if the whole process were streamlined & more contractors friendly.” 12-8 16

“This is a mixed bag, because of the mountain of paper work to get a contract; small contractors can’t and won’t apply. It’s only for large contractor that can have a staff of people to wade through all the paperwork.” 20-5

“After collecting information & reviewing web sites – the contracting process is time consuming & most difficult.”12-5

“Not aware until reading excerpt from law which will in turn be interpreted and written into Code of Federal Regulations as gospel which will probably somehow conflict with existing laws & current regulations & will probably be at best so more pages when fully “regulated” by the Government (or codified – whatever)” 8-3

“They possibly could, provided they don’t get mired down in “bureaucratic red tape and committing to death” 16-7

A few of the respondents were somewhat sympathetic to the Forest Service’s problems, identifying that other factors, such as the state of the overall economy, hindered the agency’s ability to fulfill its stated objectives.

“I feel the supply of timber is directly related to the demand. Right now there is little demand. The demand for pulp seems to be picking up, but is nothing compared to previous levels.”4-6

There were even a few fascinating comments that recognized the general state of uncertainly within the forestry profession on appropriate actions when addressing multiple goals such as forest restoration and local income generation:

“I guess I have a difficult time understanding how schools like UM have been producing people with forestry degrees for over 100 years and they still are trying to figure out how the manage the forests.” 4-8

“THEY DON’T HAVE A CLUE.” 10-7

Finally, some respondents were concerned that the Forest Service, even if it was able to complete projects, might have misdirected approaches to land management:

“They have more interest in restoration than the growth of harvestable timber...The restoration of all the roads is not necessary. Leave most of the roads alone, only the ones that can cause erosion.” 3-8

Category B: Agency capture by environmental organizations

This second category covers skepticism that the SWCC is influenced more by groups with a resource protection (“environmentalist”) perspective, and if not influenced, theses groups have the knowhow and resources to achieve and maintain more than their fair share of control or input in the decision making process. As one respondent put it:

“The general sentiment, from people I talked to, was that it seemed like a lot of money being spent and with today’s financial crisis, it seemed like just another government spending spree that was targeted to bring this area into more compliance with the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) movement heavily supported by two of our non-profit environmental groups, the Swan Eco System Center (SEC) and Northwest Connections (NWC).”2-8a

Many of the questionnaire respondents were quite harsh in their assessment of the influence of conservation-minded organizations:

“Meetings only at ECO center where most do not feel welcome.”17-2

“Money spent only to keep environmentalist jobs.” 17-3

“These are ‘ECO’ OUTFITS applying for GRANTS!” 9-3

“Tax dollars to keep us out of woods. Only eco radicals benefit not common people. Bad for Swan Valley !!!” 19-8

“With everything under government control, it has no chance of success. Only eco-center women will benefit from this and they do nothing but stop growth for jobs.” 17-8

There were also comments that expressed skepticism on whether the SWCC could address key problems in the forest, such as the Mountain pine beetle or wildfire, since a dominant

environmental perspective had captured the restoration process. The following comment reflects this perspective:

“But the environmentalists need to be kept out of the process. I can see on your Forest Service land that millions of board feet of bug kill fir that has been left to rot instead of being salvaged.” 22-6

“More of the same agenda to stop all management in our forests & let the bugs, fire, etc… take over our lands” 11-2

Several respondents worried about fairness in the collaborative process itself and expressed concerns that the efforts of the SWCC had been biased by the participants’ disposition toward environmental protection. The following comment is illustrative:

“To look at a collaborative forest landscape restoration program, it is interesting to see the goals written out, and what is actually happening. I get very uncomfortable when I hear the term “”collaborative” as it is used a lot when in actuality, the members that are invited to collaborate are hand-picked, known people, that may have minor differences and are easily convinced to convert to one ideal. At this point in time, once again—in my opinion—the only collaboration that is done is with people selected by SEC and NWC in the valley. The job creators, business people, or working people of the valley had very little say in this and I can say that there has been no measurable benefit to the “PEOPLE” of the valley from this designation.”2-8

Many of these comments reflect a well-recognized historical rancor, based on many factors both cultural and social which will not be easily resolved.

Category C: Low potential for benefits to accrue locally

Many questionnaire respondents doubted that the SWCC would use area contractors and hire residents of the area for upcoming forest treatment contracts, but stressed that every effort should be made to stay with locals whenever feasible, even at a greater cost. A couple respondents put it this way:

“I feel the only time people outside the SWCC should be considered for a contract or job is if no qualified contractor or person is available in the SWCC” 22-1

“It only makes sense to utilize the local – designated area contractors first. If not an option; then move out to surrounding areas” 12-1

“The two contracts that I know of in our area were granted to out of state contractors. There were contractors locally that were more than capable. It does not help the local economy when the money earned on the contract goes to another state. For example, the one contractor pulled in a camper to stay in for the three weeks they were here. They truck in their own fuel. So no fuel purchased, no motel, the only money spent in the area was some parts and food” 22-4

Some respondents were skeptical that the local businesses would be given priority access to bidding and contract awards, and moreover, that the jobs could be sustained over time. The following detailed comment from one respondent shows the complexity inherent in any new program of meeting local expectations for economic benefit:

“I think the idea of the project is great, but my concern is just where the jobs are really coming from. I agree with the restoration of our forests, but again, how many of these jobs would really be from our area, and just how long will they keep Montanan’s working. How many of these jobs would really be from outside? I need more proof that they really are going to use our people to fill these jobs really be kept to true Montana workers… How can they prove that this is true? Just how many will be coming from out of the area, and do they plan to train and hand over these jobs, to make sure they keep jobs in the area. What proof does it show that this will boost opportunities for the small businesses? How long will this boost last and how do they plan to continue and that the project will keep the economy up in the area. One of the biggest worries is that they will bring their own people. I find what when that happens, it is hard really turn over jobs. There really isn’t proof that this will boost the economy and keep it up. It doesn’t show how the long forecast will be and how they plan to use local people for the jobs. I just have more questions than answers about if this will really bring jobs to the Montana area and use the people in the area. More often than not, they tend to bring their own and only use the local for short term jobs. They need to show a better plan on how they will integrate the local people and just how they plan to boost the economy in the area. I believe they need to give more information to the people in the area and how they plan to make sure our local people get the needed jobs in the long run. Until then I just can’t see or agree with this plan. I want a written proposal that shows our local people and economy will work.”5-4

Even those jobs provided by the Forest Service or other local government agencies through funds made available by the SWCC could not satisfy some respondents.

“I do see lots of USFS and DNRC trucks driving around but the people driving the trucks do not live or stay here. You never see anyone affiliated with any of these agencies at any community fund raisers for community benefits and they do not have any children in our school. They, as near as I can tell, do not own property here and do not support local businesses on any regular basis. 2-8a

Even the jobs that might be created could not assuage the concerns among many respondents regarding the timber economy’s decline. Seeing the loss of jobs in the area over a long period of time has left lingering frustrations:

“I personally know three people that have jobs that relate to this program. However we have lost many more jobs due to the lack of timber harvest activities, and this may be due to a lack of demand for timber products.”4-4

“As a resident of Seeley Lake & a local contractor, and after attending two meetings in the spring 2011 – I only know of two possible contractors who did any work. Also seems like a lot of this work is unnecessary & a good way to spend money.”12-4

“Only money spent was for outside people to come in and make money and leave the valley” 2-4

Lofty goals- but I do not for see it being economically sustainable.” 12-7

Category D: Lack of knowledge about the SWCC

Like any initiative that emerges within the web of the varied programs of a large organization like the Forest Service, it’s often hard to penetrate the barrage of information confronting people in their daily lives. Not surprisingly, some respondents recognized that many residents of the Blackfoot and Swan Valleys had not heard of the project:

“I don’t think most people in the area are fully aware of the program. More education and publicity is needed.”16-8

“Had not heard much. Think I recall negative comments when plans-law-released or maybe it was prior to passage – not sure.”8-2

“First heard about it in the grant writing phase then attended a couple meetings – mainly informational talking about plans & jobs available.”12-2

“Most Public is unaware of SWCC projects & future proposals” 23-8

“This is the first I’ve heard of this.”21-5

“I know several that do business here and have heard them complain about not being considered for contract. But I believe a lot more of them have no Idea what’s available” 22-5

The media, like newspapers articles, and opinion pages, (see appendix V), play a role in keeping the residents informed of new local programs, and a series of articles in the local media have been highlighting the SW Crown project and its restoration objectives. A few respondents had been made aware of the program:

“I have been informed by individual visits, newspapers, etc.” 6-5

Other comments from respondents identified a need to be more active in presenting the information about the program or using different communication vehicles to reach rural residents. At the time of the circulation of the questionnaires, the program remained fairly new, so over time local knowledge of the SW Crown program could grow. However, based on the following comments, additional communication effort could have been undertaken.

“I think that the USFS hasn’t informed” 7-5

“More notices at public places.” 3-5

“I don’t know but it seem the INFO is very “IN HOUSE” 9-5

“There is no way of ensuring that local community residents are aware of any among them who may be benefitting from CFLRP. Trade Organizations may offer better evaluation and ability to identify and locate participants.”14-4

Category E: General suspicion regarding government programs

This category is a composite of attitudes emerging from other ongoing social expectations, repeated experiences, or other influencing conditions and information sources affecting

residents’ lives. Some individuals reflected a dark, almost conspiratorial evaluation of the SWCC, while a few others actually saw the SWCC as a means for new economic opportunity in the valley. The former, more negative attitudes far outweighed the more positive assessments, yet again; the inability to query a representative sample of local residents constrains any conclusions about overall population perceptions.

A large group of respondents were not convinced the SWCC would provide many potential benefits; instead they felt the SWCC was simply another technique to disempower them and their lifestyle choices. These attitudes were exhibited throughout many of these respondent’s comments:

“Main objective is to use government control to limit private property rights. Goal is to eliminate people from the SWCC area, but it is not a publically stated position. We all know that the agencies subscribe to the mandates of Y2Y and UN Agenda 21 whereas animals have more rights than people.”2-3

“My overall perception is that it is just another long range plan to turn old Montana State into Montana National Park with large estates populated by the wealthy & on the government side – ran by federal bureaucrats.”8-8

“The forest area is being shut down and people are forced to move. Less than 1% of the people in the USA make the decision for more control of the land and the rest of us will be shut out… This was started out to be a good idea, but in the end, we all will be shut out of all the forest, unless you’re young or have horses. In my opinion this is like most government project, a total waste of money, I have lived in Montana for 72 years and finding us being locked out of the forest more and more all the time. Just a little at a time so the younger generation won’t notice. Removing old roads that the tax payers paid for and now have to pay again to remove is not beneficial to no one. Less than 1/10 of the population will ever know why?” 20-8

“I would like to say yes, but I will not. It seems like things like this tend to fall into some sort of corruption somewhere along the way.”22-7

Some of the respondents had concerns over their perception that these government programs will just end up wasting taxpayer’s money at a high cost to the nation with little real economic benefit. They expressed their concerns in the following comments:

“I think the fed is going to go broke (well they already are) and the money for this program will go away. I also feel that the industry should be self-sustaining without help from the fed.”4-7 23

“It totally self-serving and has killed our economy.” 10-8

“Hopefully they run out of money as our country is broke!!”17-6

In the face of the doubts of many of the respondents to the questionnaire, a few individuals had a far more optimistic view. To them, the CFLRP was a project worth trying. It might present a long-awaited chance at autonomy and independent generation of income from the forest area surrounding them:

“Potentially, depending upon rigor of monitoring and realism of goals. Theoretically, it could be possible to shift harvest and use strategies within the context of a steady-state harvest and employment environment.” 14-6

“It all depends on federal funding at this point. Who knows what will happen in 10 years? But the same could be said for any privately owned mill. We need more cooperatively-owned forest operations. Stimson wasn’t losing money when they closed the Bonner mills. They just weren’t making enough money. Community owned integrated operations give us control of our destiny… “I like the idea of CFLRP – it’s worth a try.” 13-8

Discussion

An examination of the sentiments of a group of residents of the Blackfoot and Swan Valleys identifies a larger underlying concern than the consequences of the SW Crown project. It is the simple question, “What will become of me? (including my family, my friends, and my community)” In a place where past economic activity and promise have given way to new sets of relationships between residents and their surrounding National Forests, people are understandably skeptical. It will likely be many years before the impacts of the suite of forest treatments that result from the SW Crown project are fully felt, so responses to the initiative at this point might reflect little more than the turbulence of the changing times. However, it will be important to understand resident attitudes during this transition period, so SWCC area residents can move forward and start a journey for renewed commitments to their place that can enhance and sustain the economic opportunities of a restructured economy. In some cases there has been new economic life style directions started by placed based grass roots style collaboration. These groups can seize the opportunity to use programs such as the CFLRP and groups like the SWCC to add more depth to their goals.

It’s clear from the results of this study that people remain frustrated with the capacity of the Forest Service to deliver on forest management and jobs. Partly this is based on a sense that residents already know from their prior experience the best ways to manage their forests, but the Forest Service would not or could not listen. Recall the comment identified earlier: “More of the same agenda to stop all management in our forests and let the bugs, fire, etc. take over our lands.” Some of the respondents gave their reasoning for this frustration with the Forest Service as the consequence of competing pressures that are trying to be resolved in the courts: “There is huge potential for economic benefits. Litigation with forest service is hindering much of the process at this time. Hopefully projects will receive enough support to move forward.” These kinds of comments demonstrate how the Forest Service seems perennially stuck between a rock and hard place. No matter what they address or direction taken, they face road blocks and walls. This dilemma would seem to be intractable if it weren’t for innovations like the SW Crown project, but even then, Forest Service bureaucracy can get in the way. Clearly, the agency needs to learn how to function more quickly and directly to deliver on their promises.

More difficult to resolve at the local level is the echo of the long standing “timber wars,” which have left a residual skepticism that the SWCC is influenced more by groups with a resource protection (“environmentalist”) perspective, because they have the knowhow and resources to achieve and maintain more than their fair share of control or input. One respondent went so far as to say, “My overall perception is that it is just another long range plan to turn old Montana State into Montana National Park.” How can you change the minds of those who want less government and more unfettered opportunity to extract wealth from public lands with the countervailing groups who wish to protect natural systems? To some rural residents of the SW Crown area who were contacted through this study, there is a sense that they will be the ones sacrificed, as the only way remaining in forest management is to let the few that are still dependent on natural resource extraction and manufacturing to slowly fade away. The extreme points of view will have to slowly and tactfully be changed into a new consensus that is willing to work toward forest stewardship style while also finding new ideas that promise to provide sustainability in the area’s jobs and local economies.

The conservation argument expresses that stewardship jobs would be able to form the symbiotic relationships with other government, nonprofit, and service industry jobs needed for the benefit of wildlife, tourism, recreation, and the restored ecosystems. This sustainability can be accomplished as long as the residents involved with the timber industry and private property owners can accept the fact that there be no growth of timber harvesting coming from federal lands other than hazard reduction, restoration and stewardship projects and that private property will have increasing amounts of development restrictions. As there are not many of 25

the natural resource extraction dependent people left; after they are gone, then a new way of life for the area can take hold and the perceptions and attitudes for restoration will lean toward one fair and common goal that will benefit the area in a sustainable manner.

While still concerned about the environment, some residents feel that there will be no room to grow the economy and increase the area’s populations in the face of current trends. This view is reinforced by data from the media (Devlin 2011) that places like the SWCC will become increasingly dependent service jobs that focus on recreation, tourism, and the few farms and ranches left. Most of these type jobs do not produce the high paying incomes that could keep current residents and future families living the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed.

The lack of awareness of the SWCC remains a nagging problem for those wishing that the SW Crown project becomes a positive model for forest restoration and agency/community relations. In this group filling out the questionnaire, there were more than expected respondents unaware of the CFLRP and SWCC, because these people regularly attend or are members of their community councils. One of their missions as community councils is to relay resident’s issues of concerns and their questions to people that can answer or address them, and then keep them updated on those issues if requested. Getting people to come to the meeting and voice their concerns is becoming more challenging. Most people give the excuse that nothing can be done about it anyway, so why bother. There were those that felt that the SWCC and the Forest Service are ultimately responsible for informing the public regarding something this important that could possibly affect the economic well-being of many residents, and thus, special processes should be in place to make sure the areas public gets the message. One person summed it up this way: “If the public (general) is not aware of the potential benefits and opportunities; I’d question its efficiency.”

Doubts about the potential of SWCC restoration projects to benefit local residents and offer local jobs raise a highly complex question of equity in contracting and efficiency in government operations. Would it be in the public’s interest to hire a less experienced, and perhaps less effective contractor just because of the local origin of the contractor? What about overall project costs? Should they be elevated to take into account a process such as “best value,” as is used in a common Forest Service authority known as stewardship contacting? What is the special ability of local timber operators within the SWCC to complete forest landscape restoration treatments? These are not easy questions to answer. There have been recent reports published, (USDA FS 2012), that give data on job growth, income and accomplishments of the CFLRP and SWCC, along with socio-economic analysis

pertaining to the area. (MOPG 2007) According to their data they are a little below their goals for the number of part-time and full-time jobs the CFLRP created or maintained, along with their goal for annual labor income in fiscal year 2012. Whether the residents of the area perceive this as positive information depend on how fully informed each person is about all aspects of the area’s economy and their individual situations.

Some respondents, by their comments, gave the perception that they have doubts and question that most of the permanent sustainable jobs, if they eventually pan out, will be filled with people that do not presently live in the area and not helping the ones that presently do. These concerns and doubts get compounded and have major implications on perceptions and attitudes when some people get knowledge of contractors in the areas doing work that most residents feel could and should be done by their own residents looking for work.

Finally, resident perspectives that have been hardened by numerous pressures within larger social and economic spheres might hinder any innovative projects to be initiated by the Forest Service. Some of the comments made about conspiracies or UN takeovers have no basis in fact. Some respondents perceive that these pressures have been complicating their lives to the point where they have adopted a belief system wherein higher-level forces are consciously attempting to destroy their lifestyles. Clearly, these were not necessarily caused by or even about the CFLRP and SWCC. Some of the pressures have essentially held up the Forest Service’s ability to sell trees, which over a few decades has resulted in the decline of the area’s timber industry. This is a bitter pill to swallow. The past two decades of the transformation of Montana’s economy has brought to certain sectors real job losses, culture losses, heritage losses, and mistrust of perceived un-sympatric outsiders who have moved into the area. This long term process has caused the change or perceived loss of local or community control, and it is best expressed through the words of one of this study’s respondents:

“People don’t understand what it is like to go from a lifestyle of hard, honest work where progress was being made, to one of ending up with less than 10% of the land in private ownership and the rest in limited access, poorly managed Forest Service land that generates very few jobs, and a valley full for people studying various things that almost always end up in private property rights being diminished. Having a grantor based economy is an economy that has no future for further generations to stay and raise a family in the valley.”

This transformation in this part of rural Montana does not answer the basic question of what will happen to me and my community, but only raises a new one: “Do we need to look back to the past to design our relationship with public forests, or do we venture into these untested initiatives with the hope that through the SWCC actions residents will start seeing economic

improvement and their concerns will subside?” Unfortunately, this study cannot answer this question, but effective, ongoing research on the outcomes from the various projects from the SW Crown project might be able to do so. Most residents carry on with their everyday lives outside the realm of the Forest Service and SWCC’s field of interaction and influence. If this program is truly for all area residents’ benefit, then studies like this will help managers consider the possible implications those decisions on area residents.

Conclusion

Given the limitations of this research, the qualitative date in this study could not be used to generalize the results to other populations. However the qualitative findings are evidence that viewpoints of rural residents may not fall at expected ends of the human versus environment spectrum. When creating natural resource policies managers have to be completely aware of the complexities of all the relationships involved in those decisions.

This exploratory study shows the diversity in this group of area residents in what they perceive and believe; highlighting the need for continual communication and transparence between themselves, other local residents, and all other parties involved in restoration projects. This kind of information will help the SWCC by keeping them grounded to the communities where they work.

The realization that needs to happen here, concerning area residents, is about jobs other than the many initial jobs from studies, planning, and engineering being done by personnel not living within the boundaries of the SWCC. The people are getting the impression that the SWCC Collaborative talks to the lumber mill owner but not the dry chain puller, the rural fire chief , but not the volunteer fireman , the motel owner, but not the room cleaners, the fuels reduction restoration contractor, but not the slash pile builder. Many area residents do not have the capabilities to acquire the education needed to formulate restoration plans and decision making jobs. These people will need jobs that can be obtained with on the job training. In the 1960s people could enter into forest management jobs by entry level positions and move their way up with just a high school education and be very successful at it. They would train their way up the ladder with the bad ones being weeded out and let go. The ones that were reliable and responsible, but with limitations to moving up, were given permanent positions that they were capable of doing, which allowed them to have beneficial and productive lives.

The continual polar opinions, accusations and blame, mostly in the local newspapers and private conversations among themselves, have generated even more confusion and negative attitudes. One the many reoccurring accusations in these articles is that the more powerful groups are allowed more control on deciding the agenda or purpose for this forested landscape before and after it is restored. These perceived forced changes to their livelihood, perhaps requiring a person to move and leave a family and an area that they have bonded to, can cause deep lasting resentment and blame for anything or anyone that even remotely represents the changes that may have caused their unwanted circumstances.

Other factors out of the SWCCs control, but also not helping matters, are the federal government’s financial dilemmas on how this country’s debt will allow for continued funding of future restoration and stewardship management of our national forests. This national debt situation is already forcing governments to cut back on their spending and find ways to reduce their debts. Our own state governments are increasingly being forced into this belt tightening status so things like matching funds are stretched thin. If the time comes where there is this loss of federal dollars in many of the public service sectors; western Montana’s many communities could face even more economic hardships and jobs losses.

The comments received from the questionnaire gave insight for understanding that even without knowing about the CFLRP and SWCC; residents had pre-conceived ideas and opinions of what is happening to the area. These residents have been watching jobs disappear and lives upended for decades, which some of the respondents attribute to the preservation and environmental legislation passed in the 1960’s and 70’s like the Wilderness Act of 1964, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) enacted in 1969, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. There are those who realize the possible benefits of the CFLRP and the SWCC, but they feel the Collaborative’s accomplishments and visions won’t be able to stop this slow progression of job losses initiated from that previous legislation.

The SWCC needs this insight to see what the lack of knowledge, existence of, and purpose for its program can cause. The feeling of intentionally being left out or avoided causes tensions and these tensions tend to worsen if those people feel they also have no say, whatsoever, in any planning, decision making, or project outcomes. Without residents continually and completely informed about the project allows people to come up with completely opposite scenarios and perceptions of what is actually happening with the CFLRP and the SWCC restoration projects.

These tensions are natural by-products of human, individual or social, perceptions produced from watching or participating in the decision making processes that affect their lives, but are also from those outside pressures inhibiting those processes by a whole host of contributing 29

factors like population increases, property ownership changes, political agendas, litigation, and news media (articles, opinion pages and letters to the editors). The list seems to be endless.

How local citizens achieved their individual perceptions and attitudes, over time and observations, can be very important for managers to know or consider when dealing with area residents and the different situations that may come up in the decision making processes. Knowing the residents perceptions of how multi-use forest landscapes have been managed over the years, and for what reasons, can be very useful to the present day managers. The fact that some of these residents have literally seen it all can be a fantastic recourse to draw from when trying to paint that futuristic picture. This enhanced acknowledgement and sharing of information can be equally helpful to those residents wanting to justify their perceptions. Many who still feel they were the ones that had to sacrifice the most, and still have the most to lose with the least amount of perceived influence.

The idea of letting the local communities periodically judge the effectiveness of the CFLRP and SWCC management could be an important step for the continuing support of the local people and Congress, Over time; championing this kind of relationship could eventually lead to future larger scale collaborative federal land management agreements and projects. People develop their individual perceptions by where they think the fit into the scheme of things compared to what they have been told by the planners and managers. What information they do not get from the SWCC or the USFS they have to get from what they have experienced, heard, and read in the media no matter how confusing that can sometimes be. First-hand information with explanations can add to a fuller understanding to what they had witnessed, heard, and read. With better communication and steady information from the source, it will dampen political overtones and unsubstantiated rhetoric that tend to help create negative perspectives about the economic benefits from the CFLRP, and SWCC federal forest landscape restoration projects.

If done tactfully, local resident’s perspectives and concerns can be influenced or even changed by efforts of the SWCC. Enhanced communications with a better sense of inclusion will help speed changes in their perceptions which then could help them get on board with the economic changes needed due to the loss of natural resource extraction jobs. These changes will have to rely more on the ranching, recreation and retirement monies servicing small businesses. There is this hope that if the SWCC can create a sustainable restoration and stewardship maintenance program for public and private lands contained within the area, it will create sustainable jobs, establish a sound co-existing economic and natural environment for the benefit of those within and surrounding the SWCC.

This continual confusion of what’s actually going on combined with tensions of resentment and blame can be exacerbated by the multitudes of magazine, newspapers, internet and television that are continually telling them different and often conflicting explanations or reasoning for what’s causing the area’s economic decline and continued job losses. An enhanced media access is playing an ever increasing role in helping the public form opinions and increase their knowledge about issues and concerns facing their communities. At the end of this case study I provided a list of the local newspapers articles, opinions, and letters to the editor for the past 2 years in order to illustrate how people can get influenced by the continual influx of similar articles that can inform, lay blame and even confuse the issues. (Appendix V) This bombardment of conflicting information will, over time, has enormous influences on people’s perspectives.

Having lived in Montana basically my entire life, I have witnessed, or been aware of the many different ways to make a living in Montana, including the timber industry. With 26 of those years working in the wood products industry, I have met, am related to, or have worked with people in all areas of Montana’s economy, including its tree/forest/ecosystem management experiment. This exposure to forested landscape management has been from the educators to the researchers, from the timber harvest planners to the individual that is, (walking in), staking grade for a road to a cutting unit, and from the tree faller to the person selling the wood or paper products in a store.

Montanans, as with all Americans, are working towards many common goals, with the premise that everything is fair and just for all. One such goal is to find ways to support themselves, support their family, and get as much pleasure out of life as possible while they are achieving that goal. These common goals have threads that hold the many paths to their goals together. These threads are trust, respect, communication, information and compassion.

Most of the time, the circumstances that you were raised in and the amount of opportunities presented to you, before you were old enough and allowed to choose, set the initial point where you start your journey of job selection and life’s adult pathways. I realize, as do most people, that there no road map or completely right or wrong answers in taking those paths, but what’s either not realized of forgotten at times, is that these common threads are the main fibers that keeps the commonality of these paths from breaking and falling apart. The many right and wrong decisions that are cycled, recycled or blended together, make up those threads to create a fine line or waves lines generally producing a sort of equilibrium and fairness. To maintain these fine lines, in a democracy, can be ever so difficult because of the endless variables in knowledge, cultures and individuals as well as constantly changing societal needs.

This case study can inform decision makers to decide if and when they need to pull these common threads into a tight cord with constant communication and flow of information. This cord then has to be constantly monitored, not allowing any threads to fray away and weaken the rope. Frayed threads start allowing wrong perceptions of fairness and management goals. A renewed focus on constant communications and multi-directional flow of shared information, with special attention to blind or blank spots, is good for democracy and the larger picture moving forward.

The SWCC has to effectively communicate to everyone that the participants realize the devastation that has impacted those people and their families who have lost jobs in the processes of timber conservation, preservation and restoration. Residents realize they are not alone when it comes to economic hardships and job losses. They are aware of the nationwide job losses, whether it’s crunching numbers on a spread sheet or pulling lumber on a green chain. But respect, compassion and tactful communications can ease the pain and preserve the threads. Managers need to communicate to the people that they know that people do not just lose their jobs, but also a part of their life and a stable economic stake in their future. They need to continue to give residents hope when hope is warranted, and treat reality with real sympathy, but without sugar coating. They are also responsible to continue their mission to create an eco-friendly environments where sustainable jobs can and will exist. The added benefit of continually informing all participants and area residents of what the SWCC is doing for them, how they are doing it and why they are doing it, will be the tight rope that keeps the threads in line.

An example of the an overall strategy would be to have the ability to quickly and effectively communicate and explain how changes, like litigation hold ups and land ownership changes, may affect the management process, to all resident of the area. These land ownership changes alone will have their own set of economic impacts to the area with increasing, yet to be determined, long-term effects. Because the benefits of these conservation and restoration programs tend to have a multiplier effect on the local economies (Dubrasich, Mike, 2010), the success of SWCC communications is essential.

In the long run; it matters how the public perceives those collaborative actions and results in order for the area to become a stable and economically sustainable place to live. The people need communities, where they can live, love, and depend upon the landscapes for their own, and their communities’ welfare. For proposals and restoration projects to be a success, we need to know if the locals believe that these projects are beneficial to them and future generations. If there is substantial proof, through overall community approval, that the design of the CFLRA and SWCC proposals/projects work as envisioned and actually are benefiting the

people for which the CFLRP and the SWCC envisioned, it will greatly increase the possibility of governments to continue or even expand these approaches throughout the country and beyond.

Many residents are in fear of losing their homes, jobs or local business as the area’s economy keeps getting weaker. Humans need mental and financial security (individually or collectively) to help calm the tensions affecting their lives and the livelihood of the community as a whole. Most of them are constantly feeling the pressure to reevaluate and deal with their economic situations. Their decisions based on their perceptions will determine if they can remain in the area or are forced to move. For those that can or decide they want to stay and live in the area of the SWCC, some of them , through communication, will see or feel the need to become directly involved in dealing with these continuous and developing collaborative management schemes. As a direct result of this pressure and the frustration of dealing with a USFS in the process of getting stuck between a rock and hard place; these community-based forestry organizations like the Blackfoot Challenge are able to take advantage of the services of the SWCC, while making every efforts to find positive ways forward that reduce conflict, promote economic alternatives, and help community members envision a future with positive options (USFWS/Blackfoot Challenge 2012). The participants on these new collaborative groups put their heads and resources together to identify and tackle problems related to resource management that were affecting communities. This method has not completely solved the problems in the area but at least if gives them a platform to stand on and stay the course of working to help guide their destiny.

In order to help ease that fear, these residents need to be aware of and have some sort of reassurance, or constant reminder that the SWCC is doing their very best to accomplish their goals, one of which is social and economic benefits to the local communities. These reassurances can be expressed through constant and open communications (written in the form of public updates/notices posted in strategic places throughout the communities, or verbally at weekly or monthly meetings) so information can be relayed to everyone no matter who they are or what it takes. Communications and trusting relationships with area residents are essential in order to build and maintain positive perceptions and attitudes about the CFLRP and the SWCC.

The most insightful discoveries of this research are not that certain individuals in the communities view the SWCC favorably or unfavorably, but that the entire issue of forest landscape restoration projects has made residents recognize the difficult value tradeoffs and control changes that arise from collaborative actions. It seems that the respondents want

discussions and continual information sharing because it is hard for people, so bonded to the land, to feel left out.

As more concerns or tensions crop up during planning, project implementation and restoration progresses; knowing how residents feel about them may give managers insight on the causes of their concerns. Understanding these categories and the connections between them would help policy makers, planners and implementers understand why or what concerns have merit and need addressing or monitoring.

If these communities in and around the SWCC are to survive as more than just residents owning or working for businesses servicing retirees or vacationers, then joining collaborative efforts with the USFS and the SWCC will have to be continually sought, reviewed, updated and even reinvented.

If this countries’ economy continues to worsen, the political pressures for Congress to provide jobs in areas like the SWCC will continue to mount. Eventually this pressure could force very prescriptive legislation to help turn economies around. With collaborative style management becoming more popular and socially acceptable across the nation, the “man versus nature” conflict will continue to see pressure from multiple sides. The degree of these tensions would depend on social, spatial and temporal influences of specific landscapes with how much focus is on benefiting citizens living in close proximity to that specific landscape and how much should benefit the nation as a whole. How this pans out at present is anyone’s guess, but economic factors generally end up as one of the deciding factors.

Most of the respondents, no matter what their perspectives are, acknowledge that no one really knows what lays in the long range future for this area. During this insight gathering, at times it seems like some of the polar perspectives were coming from parallel universes. There seems to be this social, information, and communication gap separating them. The only people that seem to be able to see their commonalities were the fence riders that can see both sides. Thus, the primary objective of this research is to get a qualitative insight on the attitudes and perceptions from these few volunteers to possibly get help finding the common ground between the polar perspectives and give land managers this added insight when making decisions in their restoration projects. This groups small but important slice of the chart, regarding their perspectives and attitude , will go a long ways in helping managers to understand the importance of emphasizing the their goals, present and long term, which are aimed at sustainability of jobs and beneficial effects on local communities. I got the feeling while talking residents that many want to believe that jobs and economic benefits will result from these federal forest landscape restoration projects but they could use continual

reassurances, through information updates, monitoring, and constant monthly communications, to reinforcement that belief.

Some of the CFLRP, USFS and SWCC’s goals are to help provide job opportunities, training opportunities, and economic benefits for local residents and communities within and surrounding the designated boundary area of the SWCC (see map on Pg. 6). These papers recommendations would ideally be applied to a larger area than those that are considered local by the CFLRP and SWCC which would include larger cities and communities like Helena, Deer Lodge, Philipsburg, Missoula, Great Falls, Butte and Kalispell. However the recommendations were focused on the benefit of the community councils and the public that they represent.

Appendix I

Description of SWCC and Map of Crown of the Continent The SWCC is nested up against the larger Crown of the Continent, which is a proposed large scale futuristic landscape conservation model that can cross national borders called; REMARKABLE BEYOND BORDERS (RBB) (McKinney 2010). The SWCC is a step closer to the RBB large landscape collaborative type management styles that are gathering interest, support, and momentum throughout the U.S. and other areas around the world. This place-based shared management collaborative with national policy over site has the capability of proving to the nation as a whole that this management style can work and possibly save the tax payers money. (McKinney 2010) Like the SWCC, each one of these landscapes has individual characteristics and today’s science is starting to prove that they need to be looked at in a different light and managed accordingly (Kemmis 2001). Managers are starting to realize that this type of management can create local jobs and help bring the area into economic sustainability for the local residents. Getting in on the initial development of these sustainable restoration and stewardship programs, the collaborative with a good economic monitoring program, will prove their value to the local communities and the nation in the long run. This type of ecological restoration is taking hold all over the world as explained in “Ecological Restoration – a means of conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods/a call to action by the ecological restoration joint working group of SER International and the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management.” (Gann 2006)

Crown of the Continent

Map courtesy of http://crownofthecontinent.org/

Appendix II

Timeline for most of the natural resource (timber) development and conservation measures affecting the SWCC restoration area From the early 1900s the area was mainly logged by the Anaconda Lumber Company to support the mines in Butte and for the rail roads. Most of the lumber taken during those times were out of the lower Blackfoot drainage and floated down the river. The Clearwater and Swann River drainages were left fairly pristine. -1940s – 1950’s Pyramid Mountain Lumber started operations in 1949 in Seeley Lake. Increasing demand for lumber from growing populations and national demand -1960 Major timber presence with new lumber mill starting up and expansion of existing mills Increasing amount of forests being logged to supply demand Many families moving into area seeking jobs in lumber mills 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained yield Act passed; 1964 Wilderness Act Passed 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) passed, Started to limit logging on Federal Timber Lands 1970 Endangered Species Act Passed Increased constraints on logging Blackfoot Challenge Collaborative begins its formation Logging on Federal land continues to decrease due to environ litigations 1976 National Forest Management Act passed, solidifies public land to remain - 1980 Lumbers mills start feeling the effects of the conservation legislation of the 60’s/70’s Timber Company putting more emphasis into logging their own properties and other private and state properties Some land swapping still taking place between public land and private land for consolidated land management and giving the larger timber companies more timber to log Lumber mills in area start downsizing or shutting their doors -2000 Downsizing and closing of mills continues and federal timber sale litigation continues, Timber companies start considering the selling of some land holdings 2007 Legacy Project, Transfer of some Plumb Creek Land Ownerships to the Nature Conservancy 2009 Forest Landscape Restoration Act (FLMA) passed allowing the development of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP)

- 2010 Southwestern Crown Collaborative proposal accepted for CFLRP 2011 First monies from the CFLRP given to the SWCC and approved forest landscape restoration projects are funded - 2020 The CFLRP for the SWCC comes to an end

Appendix III

About myself and how I relate to the SWCC

To show my relationship to this landscape and my championing for this study case; I will include this short story of my connection to the Swan, Clearwater, and Blackfoot River drainages referred to now as the Southwest Crown Collaborative Management Area (SWCC). I will tell of the first time that I was introduced to the area, giving my first impression of the area with no preconceived ideas, due to my age and limited knowledge at the time, of the now SWCC area or any landscapes west of the continental divide for that matter.

I became aware of this area, now called the SWCC, in 1964. I was 11 yrs. old and for economic reasons (unknown to me at the time), my family moved from Big Timber to Libby, Montana in the north-west corner of the state. During this period, many eastern Montana families, along with families from all over the mid-west, were moving into western Montana, seeking the available jobs that had better pay and benefits then the ones they had lost or left. They moved in order to hopefully find that American dream of owning a home and increasing their standard of living for themselves and their kids.

Big Timber along with many other towns in eastern Montana was experiencing economic downturns in the late 1950’s and early 60’s, resulting in job loses or very low pay. In Eastern Montana small ranches and farms were in decline, and the new Federal Highway Interstate system was moving into Montana routing traffic around many of the smaller cities and towns. These Interstate highways were designed to make travel faster and more convenient for the public to travel and for the military and businesses to get their people and products efficiently from one place to another. As a result this left the small cities and towns isolated from a lot of the bypassing traveler’s money. The small towns now had to depend on the private businesses, farms, and ranches that were left, along with local, state, and federal government jobs, if there were any, for their sole source of economic stability. As a result many families had to move else ware to find work. My family was part of this economy driven migration.

Western Montana at the same time was experiencing an economic up-turn in natural resource extraction jobs like logging, wood products production, mining, and dam building to feed the demands of the nation’s growing population and its need for natural resources top support industrial growth. People from Eastern Montana and many other states were moving into this natural resource rich areas of the Pacific Northwest filling the many job opportunities becoming available to meet those demands. (See Population Maps in Appendix III)

In late October 1964 I entered the area now called the SWCC for the first time. After going through Helena, on US highway 12, and crossing the continental divide into western Montana over MacDonald Pass we turned at the town of Avon onto State highway 141 heading towards Ovando and the Blackfoot River Drainage. This was where my family got our first view of the SWCC. From there we turned onto US highway 200 at Ovando heading towards Clearwater Junction where you then turned north on State highway 83 heading towards Seeley Lake, Condon, Big Fork and Kalispell. From there we would hit US highway 2 taking us that last leg of our journey westward to Libby.

We drove to Libby through the SWCC, because at the time it was the shortest way to Libby if you wanted to stay on a paved road. There was only a small stretch of road between Avon and Ovando MT that was not paved and the state had just finished paving State Highway 83, from Clearwater Junction to State Highway 35 at Bigfork. My parents, with five kids, and another family borrowed a 1949 one and a half ton truck from a rancher in Big Timber in which they loaded their life’s belongings. We were like an overloaded caravan of gypsies headed to the great northwest and our new frontier called Libby where we would seek better lives and a much brighter future. No one was happy having to leave Big Timber, but there was the perception that there was in reality no other choice. Had it not been for my dad knowing a couple of people working at the J Neils lumber mill in Libby and being able to stay with them until he found a home for us to live; he could have just as easily stopped in Seeley-Swan and found good paying work at the mills in their area.

For me, being an 11 year old kid imprinted by the Big Timber country and protected by the Crazy Mountains, it turned my whole life upside down. I was a sad, angry, but yet excited, and experiencing many different changes all jammed into one. I still remember that trip like it was yesterday. As we entered western Montana crossing the continental divide, it was the first time I had ever really encountered a substantial amount of pine trees covering such a vast area, let alone the gigantic size of some the ones in the Blackfoot and Clearwater River drainages. My whole family marveled over how many and the size of these huge trees, especially the ones that we thought were dead, because all there needles were turning yellow. This was the first time my family had ever encountered Western Larch (called tamaracks by the locals).

Another thing that really stood out was not being able to see any distance away from the highway. We all noted not being able to see anything outlying away from the road or far-off landscapes once we entered the Clearwater and Swan Valley. The road was like a straight ribbon lined with ferns with these great forest walls closing in on both sides. As we progressed through the Clearwater and Swan Valleys, we could see brief glimpses of a lake every now and then, but that was all except the road and tree walls. When we entered the Flathead valley at

Bigfork the new valley opened up and you could then see the valley floor, hills, and mountains on the other side.

That drive through the SWCC really enhanced the feeling in me of going into a wild unknown land with an eerie sense of what’s out there. This was one of my first notable experiences with the sense of place where I began realizing that areas are different and cannot be looked at in the same way as other areas. I knew then that I was leaving one place and moving to another with unique characteristics all of its own. I remember thinking to myself; would places like this will always be this way or do they change over time like the way our lives were changing? The one thing I knew for certain when we finally reached Libby, was that my life was changing. I knew, like it or not, I would have to except change, adapt, and use my abilities to make any situation survivable. Even though I was only eleven years old at the time, I learned that valuable lesson, and have relied on it ever since.

It has now been around 47 years since that first drive through the South Western part of the Crown of the Continent and I can truthfully say that I have witnessed and adapted to life’s changes. After spending 6 years in Libby, 8 years in the military, 4 years working odd jobs while in undergraduate school, 28 years working in the timber industry and 2 + years in graduate school; I have respectively been able to except those changes and adapt it to my needs. Thankfully, I now have the chance to watch, reflect and explore these changes happening to Montana landscapes. This particular forested landscape, that this case study helps reflect, happens to be just one of the many wonderful places that sparkle and reflect the beauty of Montana.

Appendix IV Maps courtesy of Peggy Guide and Sonoran Institute 1965 Populations

5 Counties included with SWCC 1960 Population-125,740 (US Census Bureau)

2005Populations

5 Counties included with SWCC 2010 Population-299,395 (US Census Bureau)

Appendix V

INTRODUCTION and QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire Purpose: professional paper by Jimmie McKay U of M Graduate Student Requirement INTRODUCTION I am a member of the West Valley Community Council, and a graduate student at the University of Montana working for my Master’s Degree in Forest Resource Management. After 26 years of working for Smurfit Stone, my job came to an end. After reevaluating my goals, I believe now that there is an opportunity for me to do what I have always wanted to do, which is helping to guide the ever changing economic interests of Montana communities and citizens. I can accomplish this by working alongside private citizens, contractors, and business owners, in conjunction with county, state and federal agencies on resource and land management issues. I am a person deeply committed to Montana with its sense of place, and want to help communities dealing with the many complicated public and private land and natural resource management issues. I will, in whatever capacity, be a part of resolving these issues with new ideas, innovative solutions, cooperation and determination. The information in this questionnaire will only be used to help produce a professional paper for my graduation requirements. I will use the information to help research, analyze and develop the main subject in my paper. That subject is based on a primary question: With the help of Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) funding; what are the public perceptions of the ability of the Southwest Crown of the Continent Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project to provide economic opportunities to local residents of the project area? These public perceptions will then be compared to what the Forest Service and SWCC managers and member’s perceptions of what are happening with the programs and their intent. I want to determine if the public and local communities actually believe there are local jobs and training opportunities being produced along with measurable positive economic impacts from the projects and monies invested from the SWCC projects. These jobs and training can be from either project funding carry over to local businesses, or from the restoration programs, or projects themselves.

Below are the excerpts from the 1.(CFLRA Public Land Management Act), and 2.(SWCC Approved Proposal), that I will be focusing on. 1. PL 111-11 Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 TITLE IV—FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION SEC. 4003. COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM. (a) (b) (c) a collaborative forest landscape restoration proposal shall--

(7) Benefit local economies by providing local employment or Training opportunities through contracts, grants, or agreements for restoration planning, design, implementation, or monitoring with-- 1. Local private, nonprofit, or cooperative entities; 2. Youth Conservation Corps crews or related partnerships, with State, local, and non-profit youth groups; 3. Existing or proposed small or micro-business, clusters, or incubators; or 4. Other entities that will hire or train-local people to complete such contracts, grants, or agreements; and (8) 2. Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative CFLRP Proposal Investments- Page2 Paragraph 3 & 4 3. “Increased restoration investments will significantly improve the local economies in the landscape by creating much needed jobs”. 4 “These jobs will create employment opportunities for local small businesses and non-profit organizations in the form of contract to implement and monitor projects, which will provide a much needed boost to the local rural economies of the communities in the SW Crown”.

QUESTIONNAIRE

The discussions and answering of questions are completely voluntary. The information will be entered into a non-personally identifiable and secure data base.

QUESTIONS (circle best answer) and (comments or explanations are welcome and appreciated in the space provided, or on back) 1. What does the word “local” in this legislation and proposal mean to you? a. Within the designated area of the SWCC. b. Within a certain radius around the SWCC; possibly surrounding counties. c. Within the Pacific Northwest. (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana) d. Other (please write in) Comments: ______2. How aware are you of the CFLRP and its purpose. a. Fully aware b. Moderately or somewhat aware c. Not aware Comments: ______3. How aware are you of the SWCC and their purpose. a. Fully aware b. Moderately or somewhat aware c. Not aware Comments: ______4. Over the first year of its implementation: Do you think the CFLRP is accomplishing the intended goals, noted above, of benefiting local employment or training opportunities through contracts, grants, or agreements for restoration planning, design, and implementation? a. Yes b. No c. Do not know Please explain: ______

5. Are the local “public” and contractors, being adequately informed about the CFLRP and the SWCC‘s developing restoration proposals, and current working projects? a. Yes b. No c. Do not know Please explain: ______

6. Do you think the SWCC restoration projects along with best management practices will be able to supply a sustainable supply of timber for all types of wood products or bio-mass processing plants? a. Yes b. No c. Do not know Please explain: ______

7. Do you think the SWCC restoration projects along with their best management practices of other projects within the SWCC will be able to supply sustainable jobs throughout the duration of the CFLRP 10 year lifespan and beyond? a. Yes b. No c. Do not know Please explain:______

8. Is there anything else that you would like to tell me about your perceptions of the economic impacts of theSWCCproject?______

Contact Information: Jimmie McKay PO Box 436 Frenchtown Mt. 59803 Email – [email protected] Phone-406-360-7395 Thank you!

Appendix VI

Local Area News Paper Articles and Published Opinions

3/2010-3/2012

March 18, 2010 Thursday—“Public takes title of 112,000 acres- Plumb Creek Timber Co. land handed over in phase 2 of Montana Legacy Project” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

March 19, 2010 Friday – “Land Board approves buying Fish Creek acreage” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

April 11, 2010 Sunday—“Under siege, Beetle attack forces UM to clearcut part of outdoor classroom” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

April 14, 2010 Wednesday—“Public weighs in on land management rule” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

April 20, 2010 Tuesday—“Proposal in works for new rail trail – Multi-use route would pick up from Hiawatha” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

May 9, 2010 Sunday “Wood pellet industry in tank- Colorado plant cites saturation, economy” By Mike Laurence “Steamboat Pilot & Today (Colo.)

May 13, 2010 Thursday “State eyes Plum Creek land purchase” By Matt Gouras- Associated Press

July 7, 2010 Wednesday—“MOUNT JUMBO- Missoula Recreation area grows” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

July 18, 2010 Sunday—“A public jewel- State park, wildlife area dream opportunity for FWP” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

August 29, 2010 – “State plan to buy 27,000-acre ranch has critics” HELENA (AP)

October 7, 2010 Thursday—“THE BIG OPEN- State welcomes hunters to 60 square miles of new public lands” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

January 31, 2011-- Missoulian pg. A7 “FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE COUNTS BY AGENCY FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004 AND 2010” Source: Legislative Fiscal Division

February 10, 2011 --GUEST COLUNM “Year of Forest Calls for action” By Tom Tidwell

April 13, 2011—“Deal blocks Obama wilderness policy” Missoulian pg. A6 By Matthew Daly Associated Press

April, 2011—“Workshop to explain upcoming forest jobs” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

April 17, 2011—“Plant closure hitting district” By Jamie Kelly of the Missoulian

June 2, 2011—“LOGGING MONEY- Projects gain funding approval” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

July 3, 2011—“Stimson begins selling off Lands-Company intends to unload 68,000 acres in western Montana” By Kim Briggeman of the Missoulian

July 11, 2011 Monday—GUEST COLUMN “Ensure last best place stays that way” By Land Tawney

July 24, 2011 Sunday—“The aging effect- With state growing gray, economy likely to see changes” By Vince Devlin of the Missoulian

July 24, 2011 Sunday—“FOREST MANAGEMENT-Global gathering at Lubrecht- Others cine to see how Montana keeps regulations to minimum” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

August 1, 2011 Monday—GUEST COLUMN- “State’s forestry practices serve as template” By Julia Altemus on behalf of the Montana Wood Products Association

August 1, 2011—Opinion Letter- “Forest Service stifles logging” By Sen. Carmine Mowbray Senate District 6, Polson

August 8, 2011 Monday—“Advocates say conservation under attack” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

August 25, 2011 “State awarded grant to purchase Stimson land” By Tristan Scott of the Missoulian

September 19, 2011 Monday— pg. B4 “Poverty increasingly prevalent-Latest figures show economy is still reeling, government can provide little help” Los Angeles Times

September 19, 2011—GUEST COLUMN- “Extending bill is critical for forests, watersheds and community jobs” By Mark Haggerty of Headwaters Economics in Bozeman

September 19, 2011 – BRIEFS, pg. B3- “Lawsuit filed to halt Seeley timber project” Missoula (AP)

September 20, 2011 Tuesday—“Timber sale suit reveals split” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

September 23, 2011 Friday—GUEST COLUMN- “Montana’s economy depends on oil, gas coal” By Tami Christensen incoming chair of the Montana Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors

October 2, 2011 Sunday—“Switch to biomass can be tricky- Some schools have seen major savings, but finding fuel a source key” By Chelsi Moy of the Missoulian

October 2, 2011—“Coalition appeals permit for UM biomass boiler” By Chelsi Moy of the Missoulian

October 2, 2011—pg. D1 “BALANCING ACT – Analysts say Montana mills may be near sustainable level” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

October 15, 2011 Saturday—“Forest act in Interior funding- Jon Tester’s legislation same as bill introduced several months ago” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

October 25, 2011 Tuesday—“Roadless ruling might clear uncertainty- Decision affects 6.4M acres in Big Sky Country” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

October 26, 2011—OPINION LETTER- FOREST MANAGEMENT-“Vital to find common ground” By George Frasca, Seeley Lake, MT

November 1, 2011 Tuesday—GUEST COLUMN-“Why people are angry at the economic inequalities” By Michel Valentin, Professor at U of M and signed by UM professor Maria Bustos, Big Sky High School teacher Cindy Green and Clare Kelly

November 7, 2011 Monday—GUEST COLUMN- “Biomass boiler right for UM, Missoula” By Royce Engstrom, President of the University of Montana

November 8, 2011 Tuesday—OPINION LETTER- INCOME DISPARITY-“Stealth class warfare for 30 years” By Richard Buley of Missoula, MT

November 8, 2011—“Poverty in U.S. reaches new high” WASHINGTON (AP) pg.A9

November 10, 2011 Thursday—GUEST COLUMN- “Another Forest Service monument controversy” By Don Erickson of Condon, MT

November 27, 2011 Sunday—FOREST MANAGEMENT-“Model, act show split on tinkering” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

November 30, 2011 Wednesday—RURAL INITIATIVES OPEN HOUSE- “Seeley sees mill uptick, but storefronts shuttered” By Kim Briggeman of the Missoulian 48

November 30, 2011—MISSOULA ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP-“New president leaves organization- Jim Bowman exits partnership after taking over in June” By Jenna Cederberg of the Missoulian.

December 2, 2011 Friday— OPINION LETTER-UM BIOMASS BOILER-“Solution in troubling economic time” By Ed Hackett, Stevensville, MT

December 2, 2011—UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA-“Biomass plant on hold” By Chelsi Moy of the Missoulian

December 2, 2011—GUEST COLUMN-“Collaboration essential between forest industry, environmental groups” By Julia Altemus on behalf of the Montana Wood Products Association

December 3, 2011 Saturday—UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA-“Biomass project halted – Officials cite costs, pollution, fuel supply as reasons to suspend plan” By Chelsi Moy of the Missoulian

December 4, 2011 Sunday—RAVALLI COUNTY-“Public shares concerns of forest management” By Whitney Bermes of the Ravalli Republic

December 11, 2011 Sunday—MONTANA-“Speaker give economic, tax outlook” By Charles S. Johnson of the Missoulian State Bureau

December 11, 2011—“Changing Course- In order to survive, once-imperiled Seeley Lake mill moved to specialization and diversification” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

December 11, 2011—BITTERROOT FOREST-“Timber failing to draw interest- Some say Forest service pushing wrong sales” By Perry Backus of the Ravalli Republic

December 12, 2011 Monday—GUEST COLUMN-“Broadband expansion essential to rural economies” By Patrick Miller of PFM Manufacturing in Townsend, MT

December 18, 2011 Sunday—“Learning needed-Training, education key to finding work in evolving Montana job market-Projecting our 2012 economy” By Betsy Cohen of the Missoulian

December (?), 2011—MISSOULA ECONOMY-“Job growth goals are ambitious, attainable” By James Grunke, consultant with National community Development Services

December 22, 2011 Thursday—SEELEY LAKE-“Tester defends forest measure-Wilderness, jobs bill failed to make budget package” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

December 22, 2011—“County agrees to protect 327 acres” By Kim Briggeman of the Missoulian

December 22, 2011—GUEST COLUMN-“Many disappointed with inaction-Montana has much to gain from Forest Jobs legislation” By Loren Rose of Pyramid Mountain Lumber in Seeley Lake , Tony Cotter of Sun Mountain Lumber in Deer Lodge, Dan Daly of Roseburg Forest Products in Missoula, and Wayne Hirst of Hirst and Associates in Libby.

December 24, 2011 Saturday—FIVE VALLEYS LAND TRUST-“Easement deal to conserve 500 acres near Potomac” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

December 24, 2011—MONTANA-“New bids will be accepted on revised timber sales in Bitterroot” By the Missoulian and Darby Ranger District

December 25, 2011 Sunday—“Q & A: ‘Bubbles’ muddle economy” By Jenna Cederberg of the Missoulian

January 4, 2012 Wednesday— Opinion Letter-UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA-“Leadership too trendy, spendy” By Ray Berry of Hamilton, MT

January 8, 2012 Sunday—LAND EXCHANGE-“Public input extended-Proposed swap includes 40,000 acres along Montana-Idaho border” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

January 15, 2012—MONTANA ECONOMY-“Slow growth a cause for concern, but it can be overcome” By Patrick Barkey for the Missoulian, an economist and director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana

January 15, 2012—MISSOULIAN EDITORIAL-“Middle ground on forest bill” EDITORIAL BOARD- Publisher Jim McGowan, Editor Sherry Devlin, Opinion Editor Tyler Christensen

January 20, 2012 Friday—FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM-“Stimson project to get $6.5M in funds” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

January 26, 2012 Thursday—“Sustaining sawmills-U.S. extends softwood lumber agreement with Canada” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

January 28, 2012 Saturday—ECONOMY-“Montana finishes’ 11 below projection” By Chelsi Moy of the Missoulian

January 29, 2012 Sunday—“Forest Service streamlines appeal process- New objection rules require project opponents to get involved early” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

January 30, 2012 Monday—GUEST COLUMN-“Collaboration, trust built Forest Jobs and Recreation Act” By Robyn King of the Yaak Valley Forests Council Gordy Sanders of Pyramid Mountain Lumber, and Tom France of the National Wildlife Federation

February 9, 2012 Thursday—“Loggers to remove hazardous trees” By Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

February 10, 2012 Friday—GUEST COLUMN-“Forest restoration vital for state- Montana helped pioneer management practice that has gained traction throughout nation” By Craig Rawlings (CEO and president of the Forest Business Network in Missoula), and Scott Brennan (acting regional director of the Wilderness Society in Bozeman)

February 29, 2012 Wednesday—LOLO NATIONAL FOREST—“Project attracts interest, conflict”—“Conversationalists square off over treatments” By EVE BYRON Independent Recorder – (Montana Section of the Missoulian) Literature Citations

Blackfoot Challenge 2012, http://blackfootchallenge.org/Articles/ * Who We Are

Charmaz, K. 2004 Grounded theory: Hesse-Bibler, S.N. and P. Leavy (Eds.)

USFWS/Blackfoot Challenge 2012, Blackfoot River Watershed http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/pfw/montana/mt6.htm

Danks, C. 2008 Institutional Arrangements in US Community-Based Forestry. In: Sturtevant, E.V. and E. M. Donoghue. (eds.) 2008 Forest Community Connections. Resources for the Future

Devlin Vince 2011 The aging effect- With state growing gray, economy likely to see changes, The Missoulian 24 July 2011

Dressler, Wolfram 2010, From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative Environmental Conservation 37 (1): 5–15 © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010 doi:10.1017/S0376892910000044 THEMATIC SECTION Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): designing the next generation (Part 1)

Dubrasich, Mike, 2010. The Benefits of Forest Restoration Economy, Economic multiplier effects expand the plethora of beneficial economic impacts, including tax revenues. Forest restoration pays for itself many times over. W.I.S.E. White Paper 2010-2 . westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/09/the-benefits-of-forest-restoration-2

(Ellison, Autumn), (Mac Donald, Fraser),(Pincus, Max-Neilson), & (Mosley, Cassandra) 2010. Ecosystem Workforce Program, WORKING PAPER NUMBER 23, SPRING 2010, The Business of Restoration: Profile of Restoration Contractors in Oregon, INSTITUTE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON.

Gann, G.D., & D. Lamb, 2006. Ecological restoration: A mean of conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods (version 1.1). Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson, Arizona, USA and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

HJERPE, Evan E.; Yeon-Su, 2008. Economic Impacts of Southwestern National Forest Fuels Reductions, Journal of Forestry, Volume 106, Number 6, September 2008 , pp. 311- 316(6)Publisher: Society of American Foresters

Keen, Meg & Mahanty, Sango, 2006, Learning Sustainable Natural Resources Management: Challenges and Opportunities in the Pacific, Society and Natural Resources, 19:497-513, 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, ISSN: 0894-1920 print

Kemmis, Daniel, 1990. “COMMUNITY AND THE POLITICS OF PLACE (1990)”

Kemmis, D. 2001. This Sovereign Land: A NEW Vision for Governing the West. (2001): 136-146

Lasswell H.D .and McDougal 1992, Jurisprudence for a Free Society: Studies in Law, Science, and Policy (New Haven Press, 1992)

Nie, Martin 2008. The Governance of WESTERN PUBLIC LANDS – Mapping it’s Present and Future. The University Press of Kansas

Lowe, Ernest 2009. An Indigo Industrial Ecology Paper Creating systems solution for sustainable development through industrial ecology Restoration: a Basic Sustainable Economy Strategy www.indigodev.com/restorecon.html

McKinney, Matthew, Field, Patrick, & Bates, Sara 2008. Responding to Streams of Land Use Disputes: A Systems Approach By Matthew McKinney, Patrick Field, Sara Bates// American Planning Association*Planning &Environmental Law * April 2008 Vol. 60, N0. 4|p.3

McKinney, Matthew, Field, Patrick, & Bates, Sara 2010. REMARKABLE BEYOND BORDERS People and Landscapes in the Crown of the Continent CONTRIBUTING EDITOR- Sara Bates, CONTRIBUTORS- Nina Chambers, Shawn Johnson, Matthew McKinney, and Gary Tabor, Center for Natural Resources and Environmental Policy, The University of Montana, Sonoran Institute, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. September 2010

McKinney, Matthew, Scarlet, Lynn, & Kemmis Daniel, 2010. Policy Focus Report * Lincoln Institute of Land Policy *LARGE LANDSCAPE Conservation: A Strategic Framework for Policy and Action by Matthew McKinney, Lynn Scarlet, and Daniel Kemmis* www.lincolnist.edu ISBN 978- 1-55844-210-8 Policy Report/Code PF026 Copyright 2010

McNamara, Carter 2006. Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development: A Collaborative and Systems Approach to Performance, Change, and Learning

Missoula County Community Council Handbook, 2nd Edition May 2012 Pg. 3

Missoula Office of Planning and Grants 2007, Seeley Lake Community Council Survey: Results and Findings.

Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC) 2011, www.montanarestoration.org, the group published a booklet, Restoring Montana's National Forest Lands, outlining the process and the restoration principles. April, 2011 4th Edition

Montana REAP 2001-2011 Shift-Share Analysis http://montana.reaproject.org/reap- report.php#pg7

Morgan, Todd, McIver, 2011. Montana’s FOREST ECONOMY- A roller Coaster Ride Through the First Decade of the 21st Century MONTANA BUSINESS QUARTERLY/WINTER 2011

Pincus, M.N. and Moseley C. 2010. ECOSYSTEM WORKFORCE PROGRAM, WORKING PAPER # 24(SPRING 2010), Economic and Employment Impacts of Forest and Watershed Restoration in Oregon, INSTITUTE FOR A SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON.

PLMA 2009, PL 111-11 Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, TITLE IV—FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION

Rashband, J., Salzman, J., & Squillace, M. 2009. Natural Resources Law and Policy (SECOND EDITION) Foundation Press

Racevskis, Laila A. and Lupi Frank, 2006, Comparing Urban and Rural Perceptions of and Familiarity With the Management of Forest Ecosystems, Society and Natural Resources, 19:479- 495, 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, ISSN: 0894-1920 print

Sarah Bates Van de Wetering 2006. The Legal Framework for Cooperative Conservation, Public Policy Research Institute, The University of Montana 2006, COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE REPORT 1

Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative CFLRP Proposal, http://www.swcrown.org/

Southwestern Crown of the Continent Landscape Restoration Strategy - May 12, 2010

Society for Ecological Restoration 2004. Natural Capital and Ecological Restoration, An Occasional Paper of the SER Science and Policy Working Group (1), April 2004 53

Yin, R.K. 1984. Case study research: Design and methods. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Press

Strauss, A.L. and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

USDA Forest Service 2012. Report on the SWE Crown CFLRP. Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 18 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012, http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/pfw/montana/mt6.htm

16 U.S.C. 2104 Note (Revised February 28, 2003 to reflect Se. 323 of H.J. Res. 2 as enrolled); Steward End Result Contracting Projects Acknowledgements

James Burchfield - advisor and respected friend

Dane Scott - committee member and ethical champion

Jeffery Gritzner – committee member, geographer and favorite worldly describer